[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Mar 9, 2015 Author: Judge Andrew Napolitano Post Date: 2015-03-09 12:57:06 by James Deffenbach Keywords: None Views: 1013 Comments: 92 Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-28) not displayed.       .       .       . #29. To: war (#22) Fort Sumter was US government property. No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-14   7:30:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: war (#22) ...even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there. The border states were not *Northern* states but were all below Mason-Dixon. There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery. Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did. We're not discussing the Mason-Dixon line's colonial border disputes of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware but the war between the Union and the Confederacy aka "The North" and "The South". Go ahead, though, and read the "northern" phrasing as "Union slave-holding states" instead, if that helps to clarify. Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union and became West Virginia -- its 5th slaveholding border State, which does span well north of the supposed "cultural boundary" between the North and the South. The other four slaveholding border States of the Union were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. New Jersey and New Hampshire were two more slaveholding Union States that were well above the Mason-Dixon line. Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition, first freeing children born to slave mothers (and providing for them to serve indentures to their mother's masters, often into their 20s as young adults). As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not free its last slaves until 1827, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-14   9:40:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: war (#21) States don't have *rights* they have power; only people have rights. The power that they sought was to determine the status of a human as free or property. Power is a right of the States, which are more than government "powerhouses" on land. They are representatives of the rights and powers of the people. For example, the first 13 original States had the right to join the Unions of the Articles of Confederation and then that of the Constitution or not. They had the right to delegate some of their power to the Federal government for purposes of the common defense and such. They had the right to retain all of their State powers which weren't so delegated. Just as rights of the people are inherent, so are rights of the States inherent with their statehood for the necessary and proper administrative duties as protectorates of their citizenry and territory -- rightfully empowered, not tyrannically empowered or limited to "mightfully" empowered if they can muster enough clout. The Truth About States' Rights by Adam Freedman, City Journal - Autumn 2014, Ecerpts: A plaque at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery describes states’ rights as a doctrine that “protected the institution of slavery.” This conventional history provides a handy rhetorical weapon for liberal commentators, who accuse states’ rights conservatives of embracing a doctrine historically identified with “pro-slavery ideologies and . . . the disenfranchisement of African-Americans,” as the Nation puts it. But what if the lessons of history are wrong, and the doctrine of states’ rights was actually an antislavery ideology? Federal law guaranteed the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. [...] Congress did prohibit international slave trade in 1808; but by that time, every Southern state except South Carolina had already passed laws banning or restricting the slave trade. [A] major states’ rights issue leading up to the war concerned the right of free states and territories to exclude slavery within their borders. The Confederate Constitution was a nearly verbatim copy of the U.S. Constitution —except that, when it came to slavery, it gave more power to the central government and less to the states. contrary to many such arguments you hear today, the Civil War was not sparked by federal efforts to abolish slavery: there were no such efforts before the South seceded. The war arose from Northern assertions of states’ rights [...]. After the war, however, it became irresistible for federal politicians—eager to justify an expanded role for the national government—to associate states’ rights with the Confederacy and, therefore, slavery. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-14   12:09:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: All (#20) THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR - Excerpt: Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Those four states—Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—only seceded months later when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion. In fact, those states initially voted against secession by fairly sizable majorities. However, they believed the Union should not be maintained by force. Therefore, when Lincoln announced he was calling up 75,000 troops to form an invasion force, they held new votes, and in each case the vote was strongly in favor of secession. Thus, four of the eleven states that comprised the Confederacy seceded because of their objection to the federal government’s use of force and not because of slavery. Virtually no history textbooks mention the fact that each Confederate state retained the right to abolish slavery within its borders, and that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy. In his analysis of the Confederate Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald says the following: All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains, and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-14   12:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: GreyLmist (#32) All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains Nope. 100% wrong. ARTICLE IV Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave... , and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed—the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204) Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders. Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state. That said, it most certainly did sight slavery in its secession ordinance... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   13:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: GreyLmist (#30) Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did And I was correct when I *said* it. Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union IRC, the Line did not include what is now the WVA panhandle... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   13:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Katniss (#24) Well it wasn't. Well...that's just plain incorrect... There is not one issue cited in any statement or ordinance of secession that is not tied directly to slavery. Again, make the case for secession that does not include acts and inducements with a link slavery...you won't be able to... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   13:49:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: GreyLmist (#27) Are you aware that there were numerous Black slaveholders here? *Numerous*? No...was not aware that there were *numerous*...nor am I aware of a significant number of men of 100% African ancestry as slaveholders... The fact is, this bit of *sophist's* history depends upon labeling those of mixed race as *black*... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   13:56:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Katniss (#25) It's fully on record that numerous Union generals had multiple slaves. I'm well aware of Grant et al marrying Southern women who had slaves and because of sexist laws the *property* defaulted to their husbands. It's a meaningless bit of moral relativism. I'm also aware of his alleged ownership of William Jones whom Grant manumitted not long after *acquiring*.... I'm unaware of Sherman owning any slaves. I have seen it alleged but have never been shown proof. I'm suprised that you don't also believe that 911, OKC, and JFK are all according to government history books as well. I witnessed 9/11 first hand to the point of being at the corner of Liberty and Church/Trinity when the second plane went in...so...I'm not sure what your point there is...do I believe there was a controlled demolition? No. I do believe that flight 93 was shot down. OKC, I find it hard to believe that the conspiracy wasn't wider... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   14:22:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Katniss (#25) ...while neither Stonewall Jackson nor Lee did. Please. Both owned slaves. Again, it's sophistry to promote the idea that Grant owned slaves (which he did via his wife) and state that Lee did not but his wife did. Lee wasn't a landowner until he married... Jackson owned several slaves and apparently leased them to local business. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   14:42:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Katniss (#26) Don't nitpick the article and go off on a tangent. Wha...HUH? Did you respond to the correct post?? --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   15:00:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: GreyLmist (#29) No it was not. Sure it was and, in fact, still is. Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state. "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded. "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session. "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: "T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836 --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   15:30:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: GreyLmist (#29) The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territorie Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: "Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards and other needful Buildings." --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-18   15:33:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: war (#33) Four of the eleven Southern states did not join in the first wave of secession and did not secede over slavery. Virginia did not secede at first because it debated declaring itself a free, unitary state. Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter. West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-18   18:46:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: war (#39) You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority. You'd rather be right than accurate and factual. Katniss  posted on  2015-03-18   20:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: war (#34) (Edited) Me: Did I say "border states"? No, I didn't. You did You: And I was correct when I *said* it. Me: Btw, the Mason-Dixon line extended into what was part of Confederate Virginia until that region of it seceded to the Union You: IRC, the Line did not include what is now the WVA panhandle... No, you weren't correct when you said at #22: "There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery." Even though you misinterpreted my point at paragraph 1 of #20 in regard to the Union's slaveholding States (northward of the Confederacy but see also the westerly U.S. territories) throughout the entire war, as if that pertained to border states only, you should easily be able to confirm that WVA still spans well above the Mason Dixon line -- as does New Jersey and New Hampshire referenced at #30, which were two more northern slaveholding States of the Union all during the war and not border States only (which you seemingly overlook as excusable). Those slaveholding States (one of them -- New Hampshire -- squarely in New England) in addition to the 5 border States amount to fully 1/3 of the Union being slave States and Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed none of them from slavery. It was a year into the war before slavery in the Union's own capitol-city of Washington D.C. was monetarily facilitated towards being ended there by the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. Even with that, the fugitive slave laws still applied and D.C. was reportedly among slaveholders after the war until slavery was officially abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment [Ref. Slavery in the United States: The end of slavery - Wikipedia]. You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too. Native Americans were the last to free their slaves after the war, Military personnel of the Union were among the last and Lincoln himself was married to the daughter of a slave owner. As I recall, we even had to abolish slavery in America again after we acquired Alaska from Russia. At the time of the "Civil War", America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war. Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb but is rather worse than that, imo. More like barbarous in a "horrific ends justify the annihilative means, however unnecessarily" sort of way. Contextual edits at paragraph 1. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-18   22:04:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: war (#36) Are you aware that there were numerous Black slaveholders here? *Numerous*? No...was not aware that there were *numerous*...nor am I aware of a significant number of men of 100% African ancestry as slaveholders... The fact is, this bit of *sophist's* history depends upon labeling those of mixed race as *black*... Black Slave Owners - americancivilwar.com You can do your own research but that's just one source citing census data for the "Civil War" era. In New Orleans alone, 3,000/28% of free Blacks were slave owners. Many black slaveowners had numerous slaves. Your racial blood level speculations are like grasping at straws but do suggest that slavery here was mostly an economics-based problem and on that I wouldn't disagree. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-18   23:27:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: war (#33) (Edited) From the source at my post #32: All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains Nope. 100% wrong. ARTICLE IV Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave... Also from the above linked source at my post #32: and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed— the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204) Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders. You have misread your own Article IV example of the Confederate Constitution, which actually doesn't prohibit the abolition of slavery in those States nor does it prohibit the admission of new States without slavery. It's simply a citizenry rights clause, inclusive of their interstate travel and property protection rights, which is also inclusive of slaves as property. By stipulating all of that, it extends protecton of travel and property for slave owners (of any race) within existing States of the Confederacy and/or new ones which might choose to be independent of whatever slave-commerce entanglements and such were still extant among the others. It doesn't even go to the enforcement extent there of the U.S. Constitution's Article IV fugitive slave clause. [Edit to add also that a two-thirds majority vote in agreement for the admission of new States, with or without slaves, was nothing unusual. Compare to the U.S. standard operating procedure so.] There were many freed Blacks within the Confederacy, so your assertion of perpetual slavery is ostentatious as well as 100% wrong, as is your assertion about an establishment of slavery intra-territorially as a condition of Confederate statehood. The U.S. Constitution established slavery lawfully within its domain. Slavery was notoriously even a legality Biblically. Not only did South America have more slaves than we did, there's problaby no realm on earth that didn't have slavery at some point and likely more of it longer. The most unusual thing about it here is that it ended much quicker after America's nationhood than it did in virtually all other places throughout history. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   2:00:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: war (#41) (Edited) The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: "Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings." That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C. (not exceeding ten Miles square) as the positional seat of Federal government under Congressional authority and upon its locality acceptance of land(s) granted for that construction project by one or more of the States; as well as structural appropriations therein requiring consent of the State legislature(s) wherein "the Same" D.C./District of Columbia was to be situated for administrative purposes -- not for a monarchal ownership of the United States. Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8] That amounts to a "power of attorney" for Congress to act regulatorily as needed on behalf of the States and per agreed land zoning for Indian tribes too -- not a title transferance of State Property to "the government" or even to the Congress of it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. It does not have the power, for example, to dispose of the Constitution's Union by disposing of our States if it wants to (secessionist though they leaningly may be, like Hawaii and Texas). Edited formatting + 1st and last sentences of comment paragraph 1. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   4:27:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: GreyLmist (#42) Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter... When Virginia voted to secede it did not agree to join the confederacy. What it did do was enter in to a temporary military treaty with it. They had called a May 1861 plebiscite to determine if they should join the confederacy or remain an independent republic. About 10 days after the secession vote and after intense negotiations with the provisional government of the confederacy led by the VP, Alexander Hamilton something(his last name escapes me and I'm too lazy to google at this time) they decided to join IF Richmond was made the capital. West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession. Actually, it's evidence of the opposite. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:07:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Katniss (#43) You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority. Okay thanks for that... You'd rather be right than accurate and factual. You can't be *right* unless you are accurate and factual. Nor can you be *right* simply by stating your beliefs in the broadest of terms while offering no support whatsoever for them. That's why religion is so screwed up. PS: Now would be a good time for you to make an argument. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:10:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: GreyLmist (#44) "There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery." There was one...Delaware...sorry...I stand corrected... You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too. Can you point out where I have disputed that? America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Huh? You sound like my neighbor. He's a high end general contractor who seems to be on a mission to educate everyone about the *evils* of illegal immigration. 75% of this *workforce* is itinerant Hispanic labor. So It Goes. The subject of ending slavery was contemporary to just about every eve3nt that led to the Revolution. America did that to itself. We cannot blame other nations. Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war. Legal manumission was free. You, yourself, stated that states could determine if slaveholding was legal or not. Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb (sic) but is rather worse than that, imo. I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:22:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: GreyLmist (#47) That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C.... That particular clause was quoted directly to you and it clearly establishes the power to acquire property for forts. IF we were discussing speech and I cited the First Amendment would you state that I was *wrong* because 1A was the *religious* amendment? But giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you did not read the *entire* clause: Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings... Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV: Art IV (3) assumes that the property is already purchased and grants the government the power of rule making over their assets or *management* and *control* over it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes You were wrong *before*, too. and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. See: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937). Only when the state makes a clear claim of concurrent governance. South Carolina, as I showed above, did not when it deeded Sumter to the Fed Gov... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   8:03:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: war (#49) Boy, nothin' gets by you, does it. (sarc) Katniss  posted on  2015-03-19   8:21:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Katniss (#52) Nope. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   8:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: war (#40) (Edited) You at #22: Fort Sumter was US government property. Me at #29: No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural. You at #40: Sure it was and, in fact, still is. Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state. "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded. "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session. "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: "T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836 Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid. Reference the withdrawl of American colonies from Britain comparative to South Carolina's withdrawl from the Union in that aspect -- and that Revolutionary founding of the States as Sovereign Republics of a voluntary Union which acts equitably for them in accordance with our Constitution is still the correct view in perpetuity, regardless of how many govbot claims have accrued to the contrary since then. The difference secessionally now is that individuals opposed to the Constitution have been seceding from it, as well as their rogue commercial entities and such, not our States -- all of which are established in agreement with it. Lincoln won the November election of 1860 because all but 30 of the required electoral vote tally of 152 to do so were concentrated in 6 northern States. Even then, South Carolina considered staying in the Union for about a month and a half until December 20th, when it seceded alone and peacefully before Lincoln was officially inaugurated. Even the firing of warning shots in January of 1861 to turn back ships sent to Fort Sumter then wasn't construed by Buchanan as cause for war, who was still President of the Union at the time. That episode of Federal encroachment, though, did effectively prompt some other States to secede. When Lincoln was officiated into office March 4, he began moving to invade by Military force and seizure of Fort Sumter, which prompted more States to secede. Even after he had maliciously done that, South Carolina tried to peacefully negotiate an evacuation from its premises which was refused. South Carolina was within its self-defense rights to dislodge what amounted to an armed and hostile foreign power inserting itself dictatorially and advantageously into its midst. "In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union.'" -- THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR: Edited for punctuation + sentences 1, 5 and 6 of comment paragraph 2. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   9:09:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: war (#50) (Edited) I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War. war, no matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise. Spelling edit and to move an appended block of text to another post. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   9:35:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: GreyLmist (#55) war, not (sic) matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise. Never stated that it was not. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   9:41:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: GreyLmist (#54) (Edited) Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid. That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale. The land purchase was an act of Commerce. "In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union." I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery...neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed? --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   9:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: war (#57) I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery... Comments previously at #55 moved here: Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. As such and also conjunctive with all of the Union's slave states and territories, it cannot reasonably be assigned as the flashpoint for war. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   10:05:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: GreyLmist (#58) Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Okay...I am... And your point is? --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   10:19:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: GreyLmist (#58) (Edited) You're still arguing/debating with the fence post I see. If you enjoy beating your head over the wall then carry on. Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat James Deffenbach  posted on  2015-03-19   10:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: GreyLmist (#54) In the late 19th century, James McCrellis embarked on a title search of all Federal properties to ensure that Fed Gov did, in fact, own, among other forts and properties, Sumter: Bottom of page 214: tinyurl.com/lfab3qw --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   10:53:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: war (#57) (Edited) Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid. That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale. The land purchase was an act of Commerce. Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance. As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it is and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs expended on it, as South Carolina did regarding any Union claims of improvements made to the property of Fort Sumter and other usage expenses; which would probably have been in the range of negligible, if not overinflated, and largely offset by deliberately destructive U.S. damages to Fort Moultrie, another of South Carolina's. Here's a reason for why I suspect that D.C. owed substantial compensation to South Carolina instead of the other way around: Southern Side of the Civil War One of the commissioners from South Carolina, I. W. Hayne, said the following in a letter to President Buchanan after he refused [under pressure politically] to evacuate the fort: [...] Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent [South Carolina] fort, which was then abandoned [Fort Moultrie]. Edited spacing and spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   11:16:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: GreyLmist (#62) As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it as and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs Ha... Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance. I posted a link which cites the legislative transfer. That link also provides where the sale is recorded. Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. 100% horseshit...even though it was still under construction at the time of the Southern Hissy Fit, there were men and cannon there... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   11:38:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: war (#48) (Edited) West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession. Actually, it's evidence of the opposite. Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first: At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; Edited formatting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   12:29:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: GreyLmist (#64) Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first: Other States had internal squabbles as well in which a government was formed...Missouri is a classic example..they had delegates in the confederate legislature while the government of Missouri, itself, was part of the Union...they didn't have the geographical advantage that the ante-bellum Northwestern Virginians had in establishing a government. At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail. Alexander Hamilton Stephens is the name I was looking for previously... --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-19   13:53:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: war (#57) neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed? I answered that at #20. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   13:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: GreyLmist (#66) Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there. Sorry...I didn't consider that a very good answer...still don't...and if any *faction* of the time was filled with warmongers it was Calhoun's. And as has been pointed out to you, when the Southern states threw their hissy fit they all cited slavery in their statements and ordinances of secession. --Are you a *Jew*? war  posted on  2015-03-20   13:44:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: war (#65) Me at #42: ... West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession. Me at 64: Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first: At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; You at #65: A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail. Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State, West Virginia, in the jurisdiction of Virginia unless it endorsed Virginia's secession first. Rebellion doesn't give the U.S. government power to subvert the Constitution. Another example of the Union violating the Constitution: Southern Side of the Civil War If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. Neither Lincoln nor Congress had the right to abolish slavery in any state. The only legal ways to abolish it would have been by a constitutional amendment or by the states abolishing it on their own. Thanks for the info about Missouri at #65 and Virginia at #48. Even though it wasn't exactly counterpoints, was interesting nonetheless. Will check the link you supplied about Fort Sumter when I can. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   14:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: GreyLmist (#54) OK ... Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:05:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (70 - 92) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]